From Laura Kuenssberg:
Damian McBride denies briefing against Darling.
If we accept that at face value, then there are only two possibilities, Ed Balls and Charlie Whelan.
If it transpires that it was Balls or a combination of both, that could well end his leadership ambitions.
Darling’s outburst could not only determine the budget strategy, but also who leads the Labour party after the election.
A Tweet from Kevin Magure, a Brown supporter, says it all:
Long time since I've seen a political gift as good as Darling's "Forces of Hell" to Cameron who'll open it at PMQs
How Cameron plays this at PMQs is fundamental, especially after his tactical mistake of earlier this week. He must make no attempt to link Darling’s outburst with the bullying allegations.
Cameron would do well to recall the budget that Roy Jenkins produced just before the 1970 election:
It is though, generally assumed that Labour's defeat in the 1970 general election was partly the consequence of one month's bad trade figures announced a few days before the election and his delivery of a fiscally neutral Budget shortly before the election.
In other words, Jenkins produced a fiscally responsible budget rather than a political one. As an aside, it is one of reasons why he never became leader of the party.
The debate that is happening at present, similar to the one that happened in 1970 between Downing Street and the Treasury, may well have sparked off Darling's comments last night.
It is that divide that Cameron must concentrate on at PMQs.
Gordon Brown has just said this:
I would never instruct anybody to do anything other than support my Chancellor, and I think Alistair will confirm that.
Unless Darling confirms this in a watertight statement, it could well leave Brown in a very exposed position.
Let’s be clear about about one matter. Darling insisted that he had never been bullied by Gordon Brown. What he is saying openly is that No10 briefed against him. He could have chosen to make ‘no comment’ about an event that took place nearly two years ago, but decided against this.
We have a Chancellor of the Exchequer directly criticising the operation of the Office of Prime Minster and First Lord of the Treasury and the contact of staff working within or for Downing Street.
The experience that Darling suffered is similar to that of Nigel Lawson, who resigned. Darling survived, a point that he rammed home:
Frankly, my best answer for them is, I'm still here, one of them is not.
Whatever the result of the election, Darling is unlikely to survive in his present job. So, why he has spoken out now, when we are weeks away from a possible budget and the general election:
Is Darling just demob happy?
Has there been a difference of opinion on the budget, whether to have one and how the deficit should be addressed this side of the election?
Whatever Darling’s reasons, it is a very strange time to remind us of “the forces of hell” that were “unleashed” against him.
Darling’s outburst highlights, yet again, the way Gordon Brown has conducted himself and managed those who have worked for him.
The timing of his remarks are without precedent within the lifecycle of any government.
With the information available, it is a curious intervention that Darling has made at this time.
Tony Blair was asked on the BBC World Service's World Today programme about the way prime ministers treated their staff:
Well I think I know what you're referring to and I honestly have absolutely nothing to say about that at all.
Former leaders of the Labour party know what they are doing, unlike the other lot.
The man who prints our money has said:
It was unlikely that Britain's credit rating was at risk because of the level of government borrowing.
He said he didn't believe rating agencies would be concerned with the UK's 12% budget deficit.
I don't believe the rating agencies are concerned, in the sense that they are not re-rating the UK and I would be very surprised if they were to do so.
It so happens that Mervyn King is an economist, which means the exact opposite will now happen.
We are all doomed!
You have to ask what Christine Pratt, not a women with a clean bill of health, thought she was doing. The breaching of the confidential information was one thing, but getting involved in the little game of politics is quite another. Didn't the lady realise that she was going to run straight into the arms of Peter Mandelson. Perhaps not.
Politics is for grown ups and hopefully Mrs Pratt has learnt a very important lesson. Don’t mess with those who know how to smother people, especially if you can’t get your facts straight and your story keeps changing.
This also applies to David Cameron, who has made rather a mess of things recently for the same reasons.
The Labour party has a well oiled and very experienced election machine. The slightest slip from anyone who gets in its way as to motors along and that’s it.
Mandelson is cruising on auto-pilot at the moment, but when he gets going, with Alastair Campbell in the passenger seat, Team Cameron should look out.
The two of them are in the business of politics to win. Their election machine is built to Rolls Royce specifications.
David Cameron should treat Mrs Platt as a case study in how not to do it.
Sue Cameron, FT Whitehall watcher, enters the fray over that book. First, she has some more on Churchill:
Sir Winston Churchill could be difficult. He didn’t turf them off their chairs but he did sometimes hand them his false teeth so they always took hankies with them when they went to take his typing. Oh - and hats. When they were in the car with the great man he often allowed his budgie to fly round the vehicle and the only way to save their hair from the wretched budgie’s droppings was to wear a hat.
Now, we come to the nitty gritty:
It was back in November 2007 in the FT’s Notebook that I broke the story of how moody Gordon Brown had been “tearing strips ” off the Number 10 garden girls and had then turfed one of them off her chair and started typing himself.
Most of the other nationals followed it up at the time and now Andrew Rawnsley is recycling it again along with other stories of GB shouting at people, kicking the furniture etc.
Yes, it’s all getting rather repetitive.
On the inquiry that Cameron has called for:
There is no chance whatever of anyone launching any formal inquiries - daft to even think it.
Now to the important bit:
The cabinet office is strenuously denying that Sir Gus gave GB a verbal warning about his bullying. Well of course Sir Gus would not have done anything so crass!
Would he have had a quiet, oh-so- tactful word about the best way of er… getting things done, prime minister? You bet.
Which is a million miles away from what Rawnsley is alleging.
He has been rather uneconomical with the truth.
Having dominated the airwaves for a day, the old master’s reputation appears to be improving. John Rentoul has been reminded of a quote that he made:
When Harold Wilson thought it inadvisable to say anything, he would say: "No comment." If he were pressed by journalists eager even then to fill space, he would say: "No comment, in Technicolor."
The important point is that Wilson made this comment when the Profumo scandal broke. He just refused to get involved. Cameron could learn much from the four-times-election-winner.
As an aside, Wilson’s former press secretary, Trevor Lloyd-Hughes, died the other day:
Lloyd-Hughes was not a committed Labour supporter, but Wilson wanted to continue the tradition of an apolitical No 10 press office. As such, Lloyd-Hughes operated in a context worlds away from that of the proactive and abrasive Bernard Ingham (who served Margaret Thatcher) and Alastair Campbell (who served Tony Blair).
Wilson just did the spin himself.
As a reminder, this is one of Wilson’s more famous quotes, made at the time of an attempted coup:
May I say, for the benefit of those who have been carried away by the gossip of the last few days, that I know what's going on. [pause] I'm going on, and the Labour government's going on.
It killed the plot stone dead.
While we are on all matters Wilson, there is something else.
As the story goes, Wilson would make his annual trip to see HMQ at Balmoral to coincide with the start of the Tory conference. To disrupt proceedings at the seaside, Wilson would feed a few trusted journalists that he was seeking a dissolution. It worked a treat.
The Tories are holding their unnecessary spring (it’s still winter) conference next weekend.
Cameron should be aware of this old trick, because there is little doubt Mandelson will be preparing something for the weekend.
Harold Wilson was A Class Act.
The pre-temper tantrum poll:
CON 37%(-2), LAB 30%(nc), LDEM 20%(nc)
Now we come to the second poll, which has caused Mike Smithson, and one or two others, much heartache overnight. The original published figures were wrong or was a deliberate leak.
Anyway, here is the first post-temper tantrum daily tracker poll, with the correct figures:
CON 39%(nc), LAB 33%(nc), LDEM 17%(nc)
The figures speak for themselves. Rawnsley’s allegations are having no effect.
Tom Clarke’s analysis of the pre-temper tantrum poll is important. However, it makes you wonder if Brown has made the right call about a March poll.
We do need to know what is going on in those marginal seats. With luck we should find out at the end of next week.
Hopefully, the published figures of that poll will be correct. Mike Smithson will then be able to get a good nights sleep.
Rachel Sylvester adds to the third hand information that is doing the rounds about the Prime Minister:
I was once even told that he had broken a chair after reading one of my columns.
Gordon should start a blog. It is a much better way of taking out your frustrations.
After another bad day for Team Cameron, Our Dave is to have a little meeting:
David Cameron had called a shadow Cabinet meeting for tomorrow which will be held at CCHQ and is scheduled to last for two hours.
Neither Thatcher or Blair would have bothered with such a gathering. Both would have summoned a few trusted colleagues and sat them down on a sofa.
He’s forgotten about all that free advice that has come his way.
Down the years other Prime Ministers have had problems with their interpersonal skills.
Here is a letter that Clementine Churchill penned to her husband during the Battle of Britain:
Source: Winston and Clementine: The Personal Letters of the Churchills By Mary Soames, Page 454
A few weeks ago, this little gem popped up:
The other day, a Cabinet minister had lunch with a journalist. "What happens if you win?" enquired the hack. The minister looked astonished. It was clear that this possibility had not occurred to him. Having regained the power of speech, he replied: "There'd be an immediate leadership challenge"
Wind the clock forward to today and that Cabinet minister’s predication becomes deadly accurate. With Rawnsley’s allegations neatly wrapped around Brown’s windpipe, he is finished as leader once the election is over.
Let’s look at the different outcomes.
The Tories win with an overall majority – Highly likely. If this happens Brown will go quickly. Can you really see him sticking around to ask Cameron questions at PMQs?
Labour win with an overall majority – Highly unlikely. Brown may stick around for a while, but because of the latest revelations it will not be long before he steps down or is challenged. That Cabinet minister is right.
There is a hung parliament and Labour stay on in government as the party with largest number of seats – Whatever the polls say, our electoral system is designed to avoid this happening, but fate may intervene.
We can assume that the minor parties will not support Labour if Brown is still leader. They will look for someone with a more consensual approach.
Harriet Harman will become leader while the Labour party elects a new one. However, she is on record as saying she doesn't want the job permanently. Moreover, she would be unacceptable to the minor parties.
Ed Balls and Ed Miliband are closely connected with Brown, therefore they both rule themselves out.
John Rentoul had this to say in his column yesterday:
Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, might be a player….he might be interested in the more immediate challenge of multi-party politics. It cannot hurt that he has recently repeated his support for proportional representation.
Hmmm. Whatever the result, Labour must rebuild itself. It needs to look to the long-term rather than choose a stop gap leader that may not fight the following general election.
Only someone from the Blairite wing off the party can recapture the centre ground. Without that, a long period in opposition awaits.
Win, lose or remain in power as the largest party, there is no alternative to David Miliband.
David Cameron has said this:
These are very serious matters and I am sure Number 10 will want to have some sort of inquiry.
He suggested that the Prime Minister's independent advisor on ministerial standards, Sir Philip Mawer should look into it.
He described the episode as "another unseemly mess at the fag end of a government that is tired and discredited" and said it was "just another reason why we need a general election."
As discussed earlier, Cameron should not get involved.
Similar advice comes from Jonathan Isaby:
David Cameron should avoid getting involved in the row. There are plenty in the media, the blogosphere and on the Tory backbenches who can comment and ask awkward questions of the Prime Minister on this subject. But the Tory leader should resist any calls for him to go on the offensive.
Well, he just has and it is a huge tactical error.
Cameron should be sitting above the fray and demonstrate he is the Prime Minister-in-waiting
These allegations are Labour's problem, not his.
Perhaps we should start with a positive comment about the Prime Minister. Here is Rawnsley on Brown’s role in the banking crisis:
One very senior civil servant, in many ways a sceptic about Gordon Brown's leadership skills, gives him much of the credit for bold action in this crisis.
He quotes the civil servant as saying: "Gordon was prepared to say, 'We need to bail them out' despite the political risks. He took the lead, then allowed Alistair to do it."
Obviously, that fact is going to get smothered by the allegations about Brown’s bullying. As events unfolded yesterday, Nick Robinson had two posts, here and here, that are well worth paying attention to:
Some will, no doubt, argue that how prime ministers behave matters much less than what they achieve.
Others will argue that bullying - if it took place - is different from other personal behaviour. It is simply unacceptable.
Overnight, the story has moved on:
Labour has gone on the offensive over Gordon Brown's temperament after an anti-bullying charity said it had been contacted by staff from his office.
The prime minister's Parliamentary aide called for evidence of the calls from the National Bullying Helpline.
We shall see where this fast moving story goes from here and how quickly Labour is able to close it down.
However, it should remembered that these rumours about Brown’s behaviour have been around for years. They go back to Labour’s period in opposition, when Brown was pivotal, alongside Blair and Mandelson, in reshaping the party.
A running theme that has run through this blog has been Brown’s unsuitability to to be Prime Minister, mainly due to his poor communication and leadership skills, both of which are proven. His interpersonal skills have also been questioned.
As discussed, Brown resembles Anthony Eden, a point picked up by Bruce Anderson:
There is a parallel with Eden. During Churchill's last government, when Eden was the inevitable successor, a number of senior Tories knew that Anthony would cock it up. They did not know quite how; they did know that he would find a way. But they could not think of an alternative. For Eden, read Gordon Brown; for senior Tories in the early Fifties, read Blairites from 1997 onwards.
The small matter of Brown’s personality will be a running theme throughout the election. Labour can do nothing about this now.
The message to David Cameron is that he mustn't get sucked into the allegations surrounding Brown. He has to behave like, and prove that he is the Prime Minister-in-waiting. He also needs to keep in mind that when he stands up at PMQs, he is not only attacking Brown but the office of Prime Minister, one he may hold in a few weeks.
No doubt further leadership speculation will do the rounds, but it is too late and not appropriate. Brown should face the electorate, defend himself and Labour's record.
At the end of the day the most important jury in the country will decide Brown’s fate. It is time the electorate passed judgement on Labour’s policies and Brown himself.
Having posted on Iain Dale’s decision to publish the photos comparing Gordon Brown to Hitler, we must return to the subject this morning.
Mandrake has an article on the photos. It is important to note that Iain’s blog is not mentioned as Mandrake's source.
Lord Janner, a barrister, Labour Member of the House of Lords and former President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews has this to say:
I have known Gordon Brown for well over 20 years as a parliamentary colleague and as a friend and can categorically guarantee that these allegations are totally unfounded.
I think we have some laws on defamation that could and should be used where those defamed want to.”
On Iain’s regular Sunday night Podcast, The Seven Day Show, he briefly returns to the subject. Iain admits (6mins 30 secs in) that his post has caused controversy. He goes on to say that he probably would not have published the photos if he had been already selected as a Tory candidate.
One last point. Perhaps the artist and Iain are not aware of Godwin’s Law.
Let’s leave it there. It’s up to Iain how he handles this matter from here.
Please note: Should anyone come to the wrong conclusions, this blogger holds no religious beliefs whatsoever.
For reasons best known to him, Iain Dale decided to post pictures of Gordon Brown and Hitler that had been sent to him by an artist, who made a direct comparison between the two.
There is no evidence to suggest that Gordon Brown is anti-Semitic or resembles Hitler in any way whatsoever.
Dale made no comment on the original post, but as the post went out under his name, this infers he approves of the comparison made. Moreover, he is responsible for what is posted on his blog
After receiving many unfavourable comments, he updated the post. This not good enough.
Dale is one of the leading political bloggers with a high media profile. It is an error of judgement that he has chosen to associate himself with this artist.
To compare the Prime Minister with Adolf Hitler is, at the very least, repugnant.
We all enjoy having a rigorous debate and the rough and tumble of politics, but not when it sinks to this level.
After pleading with the Daily Mail yesterday to support the Tory cause, Tim Montgomerie has an additional problem on his plate this morning.
The Telegraph, once such a loyal supporter of the ‘blue corner’, leaks remarks Michael Heseltine made at a private function:
If I was a betting man, my money would be on the election resulting in a hung parliament with David Cameron as Prime Minister.
Just why these comments are the lead story is rather a mystery. The Tory party, after their performance of recent weeks, don't need to be warned about complacency . In any case, Heseltine has said it all before.
Such is life.
Rather more significant is the latest YouGov poll:
CON 39%(nc), LAB 33%(+1), LDEM 17%(-1)
The point here is that Labour's share of the vote is creeping up.
Mike Smithson makes this point:
The 33% share means that Labour has only lost one voter in twelve since the 2005 general election.
More worrying for Team Cameron are the various noises off from within his own party:
One senior MP said last night: “The inner circle can crow all they like about how well they are doing, but the elephant in the room is the polls. Cameron spent last week talking about sexualisation of children and nine-year-old girls in suspenders, when there are much more important issues he should be talking about.”
Another backbencher said: “Cameron and his team are panicking. We are not over the line yet. They are trying to mumble their way to the general election, playing it safe, when what people want is real passion.”
Iain Martin makes the point that part of the Tories problem is their lack of experience in fighting elections. Up to point, Lord Copper. There is a wider issue.
The reason why Cameron, unlike Blair in 1997, doesn't have the election won before the campaign starts, is that the public’s perceives that the Tory party hasn't changed. The recent foolish remarks by Nicholas Winterton’s demonstrate this.
Cameron has had four years to sort his party and supporters out. He has failed to do this. They should be united at this time and not having pointless debates about cuts.
The other day we discussed the historical parallel with the 1970 general election that Gordon Brown needs to avoid.
Perhaps, though, the 2010 election will mirror 1964, when the Labour party had to overturn a large Tory majority. Labour narrowly won, in the main due to the political skills of Harold Wilson, leading a disunited party against the worn-out Tories, who had been in power for 13 years.
It would appear that Cameron will have to attempt to repeat Harold Wilson remarkable single-handed achievement of all those years ago.
Just in case you haven't read it:
Sir Gus O'Donnell, the cabinet secretary, became so alarmed by the prime minister's behaviour that he launched his own investigations when he received reports of Brown's bullying of staff. O'Donnell then gave the prime minister a stern "pep talk" and ordered him to change his behaviour. "This is no way to get things done," he told Brown.
A far more interesting titbit from Andrew Rawnsley’s book is the revelation of Jack Straw's failed plot against Brown:
According to The End of the Party, a new book by Rawnsley, the veteran cabinet minister – who ran Brown's campaign for the Labour leadership in 2007 – told Charles Clarke, an arch-critic of the prime minister, of his plans over lunch in the summer of 2008. He said that Brown "had to go" and declared that "something will be done".
As usual it was all talk:
The plot never developed further, however, because after a long summer holiday Straw and Hoon changed their minds. The justice secretary concluded that the risks outweighed the benefits and that there would be a bloodbath if Brown refused to go. Rawnsley reveals that Straw was also reluctant to lead a coup attempt if this might mean handing the crown to another cabinet minister.
Hoon's change of heart was believed by other plotters to have come about following an assurance from Brown that he would be appointed as Britain's next commissioner in Brussels – a promise never kept. Rawnsley reveals that Straw has since debated with himself over and over again whether he was right not to act and try to remove Brown in 2008.
Jack is not alone. Some of us are still debating with ourselves whether Brown should have been removed.
Rawnsley says this:
To some of his enemies – and by enemies I mean people within his own party – the prime minister's conduct towards colleagues and staff has at times been so appalling that it raises a question mark about his fitness to hold his great office.
It clearly matters how a leader works – or cannot work – with his colleagues; whether he responds to crises and setbacks calmly or in a hysterical fashion; and how he treats his staff.
And:
The Good Gordon and the Bad Brown co-exist in the clever, proud, sensitive, raging, tearful, tormented, complex man who has ruled Britain for nearly three years and now asks for his tenure to be extended for another five. Before they make their choice, the public deserves to be fully acquainted with both Browns.
It's uncanny. Brown’s personality so much resembles that of Anthony Eden.
R A Butler, who was rather indiscreet on all matters, once described Eden as:
Half mad baronet, half beautiful woman.
Eden destroyed our damp islands status as a world power. Brown has just left us with no money.
How ironic that Brown asked the electorate to “take a second look at us”.
We just have.
This morning Peter Mandelson has to go on Marr and put the toothpaste back in the tube, all over again.
Posts
All Comments
